1: %\documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \documentclass{elsart}
3: \usepackage{graphics}
4: \hyphenation{smallest}
5: \begin{document}
6: \runauthor{Gh. Adam, S. Adam, and N.M. Plakida}
7: \begin{frontmatter}
8: \title{Reliability Conditions in Quadrature Algorithms}
9: \author[plak,adam]{Gh. Adam\thanksref{gemail}}
10: \author[plak,adam]{S. Adam\thanksref{semail}}
11: \author[plak]{N.M. Plakida\thanksref{pemail}}
12: \thanks[gemail]{Corresponding author;~e-mail: {\sf adamg@theory.nipne.ro}}
13: \thanks[semail]{~e-mail: {\sf adams@theory.nipne.ro}}
14: \thanks[pemail]{~e-mail: {\sf plakida@thsun1.jinr.ru}}
15: \address[plak]{Bogolubov Laboratory of Theoretical Physics,
16: Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, 141980 Dubna, Russia}
17: \address[adam]{Department of Theoretical Physics,
18: Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering,
19: P.O.~Box MG-6, 76900 Bucharest-M\u agurele, Romania}
20: \begin{abstract}
21: The detection of insufficiently resolved or ill-conditioned
22: integrand structures is critical for the reliability assessment
23: of the quadrature rule outputs. We discuss a method of analysis of the
24: {\sl profile of the integrand at the quadrature knots\/} which allows
25: inferences approaching the theoretical 100\% rate of success,
26: under error estimate sharpening.
27: The proposed procedure is of the highest interest for
28: the solution of parametric integrals arising in complex physical
29: models.\\
30: %
31: \noindent
32: {\em PACS:\/}~~02.60.Jh,~~02.60.Pn,~~02.30.Mv
33: %{02.60.Jh}\ {Numerical differentiation and integration},
34: %
35: %{02.60.Pn}\ {Numerical optimization},
36: %
37: %{02.30.Mv}\ {Approximations and expansions}
38: \end{abstract}
39: \begin{keyword}
40: Numerical integration;
41: Reliability;
42: Interpolatory quadrature;
43: Gauss-Kronrod quadrature;
44: Discretization errors;
45: Oscillatory functions.
46: \end{keyword}
47: \end{frontmatter}
48: %\noindent
49: %\parbox[t]{4.5cm}{\sl Corresponding author:\/}%\hspace{1cm}
50: %\parbox[t]{9.0cm}{{\sf Dr. Gheorghe ADAM}\\
51: % Department of Theoretical Physics\\
52: % Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering\\
53: % P. O. Box MG-6, Of. p. M\u agurele\\
54: % RO-76900 Bucharest--M\u agurele, ROMANIA\\
55: % \smallskip
56: %
57: % \noindent
58: % Telephone: +40-21-4042333\\
59: % Fax:~~~~~~~~~~+40-21-4574440\\
60: % E-mail:~~~~~~~adamg@theory.nipne.ro,\\
61: % \hspace*{23mm}adamg@ifin.nipne.ro
62: % }
63: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
64: \section{Introduction}
65: \label{sec:intro}
66:
67: A large number of physical models currently under study are characterized by
68: two combined features. First, the observables are obtained as integrals which
69: cannot be solved analytically. Second, the models describe physical systems
70: involving one or more specific parameters the variation of which results in
71: critical modification of the system behaviour.
72: As a consequence, deep understanding of the predictions of the models needs
73: the exploration of the values of the observables over a large range of the
74: variable parameters.
75:
76: As usual, to solve the occurring parametric integrals, recourse is made to
77: existing library codes of automatic adaptive quadrature which may fail
78: badly without providing any hint about such possibilities.
79: We are directly aware of three such frustrating experiences.
80: The first one concerns the two-band singlet-hole Hubbard model of cuprate
81: superconductors
82: \cite{Plak95}--\cite{Plak01},
83: which involves integrals over ranges of the first Brillouin zone. The
84: variation of the parameter of the model (the hole or electron doping in the
85: high-$T\sb{c}$ superconductor) results in substantial modification of
86: the behavior of the involved functions over the Brillouin zone.
87: The exploration of the predictions of the physical model with the doping is
88: fundamental for the validation of the proposed mechanism as responsible for
89: the superconducting pairing in cuprates. However, the reliability of the
90: outputs was found to be exceedingly low to allow sound inferences based on
91: the bare numerical outputs.
92: A similar problem arises in the alternative
93: ${{\mbox{U(1)}} \times {\mbox{SU(2)}}}$ gauge theory model of underdoped
94: cuprate superconductors
95: \cite{YuLu98}.
96: The meaningful physical solution derived under simplifying assumptions in
97: \cite{YuLu00}
98: could not be recovered from outputs generated by the available automatic
99: adaptive quadrature codes.
100: The numerical exploration of a model of nuclear fission
101: \cite{Aurel98}
102: could not be achieved by means of library quadrature codes either.
103:
104: These circumstances come from the fact that the existing algorithms for the
105: numerical integration of real valued functions (see, e.g.,
106: \cite{K&U98}
107: for details on the available algorithms and a recent review of numerical
108: quadrature) are tailored for specific classes of integrands, with limited
109: possibilities to solve simultaneously families of integrals falling in
110: different classes.
111:
112: We may therefore assume that a study able to increase the reliability of the
113: automatic adaptive quadrature algorithms for solving parametric integrals in
114: connection with the exploration of physical models is of interest for a great
115: many users.
116: Within the automatic adaptive quadrature, the approximate value $Q$ of a
117: given integral as well as its associated error estimate~$E$ are obtained as
118: sums of {\sl local couples\/} \{$q, e$\} of estimates over subranges.
119:
120: The general picture offered by the numerical evidence on the solution of
121: parametric integrals points towards the existence of a limited range of
122: parameter values where the local quadrature sum $q$ provides accurate
123: solution of the integral of interest, whereas for other parameter values
124: the quadrature sum $q$ is inaccurate.
125: Over the range of accurate $q$ outputs, the existing quadrature error
126: estimators provide outputs~$e$ which, in most cases, {\sl grossly
127: overestimate\/} the actual quadrature error, whence the need of
128: supplementary range subdivisions and over computing to meet the input
129: precision requests.
130: However, over the range of inaccurate $q$ outputs, the heuristics
131: implemented in the local error estimators may result in spurious outputs
132: quoted as reliable, hence the impossibility to detect such cases by means
133: of the existing library codes.
134:
135: In the present paper we discuss a generalization of the approach proposed in~%
136: \cite{AA01}
137: intended to reconcile these two contradictory aspects.
138: The cornerstone of such an analysis is the derivation of reliability
139: criteria for the validation of the local error estimate $e$ associated to a
140: local quadrature sum $q$ based on the study of the {\sl profile of the
141: integrand at the set of quadrature knots} entering the expression of $q$.
142:
143: The basic idea is that an unreliable estimate of $e$ might originate either
144: in the {\sl insufficient resolution\/} of the integrand profile, or in the
145: presence of {\sl difficult isolated points\/} (integrable singularities,
146: turning points, jumps) which result in slow convergence.
147: The occurrence of each kind of difficulty can be evidenced by means of
148: specific consistency criteria asking for the fulfillment of requirements
149: following from quite general considerations: the very definition of the
150: Riemann integral, the fundamental properties of the basis polynomials
151: which span the approximating linear space where the interpolatory polynomial
152: of the quadrature rule is defined, the properties of the continuous
153: functions at or near their extremal points, and the smoothness properties
154: of the continuous functions inside their monotonicity subranges.
155:
156: If the integrand is well-conditioned but its profile is
157: insufficiently resolved at the current set of quadrature knots,
158: repeated subdivision of the integration range eventually results in the
159: fulfillment of all the reliability constraints.
160: A genuine difficult integrand point, however, recurs under repeated subrange
161: subdivisions.
162: Therefore, repeated analysis of the integrand profile under subrange
163: subdivision ultimately results in the {\sl diagnostics stability under
164: iteration}. This is the point where the general control routine of an
165: automatic quadrature rule can take safe decisions concerning the best way
166: to continue the solution refinement or to decide that the integral was
167: solved within the input accuracy specifications.
168:
169: The paper starts with basic definitions and notations (section~\ref{sec:defs}).
170: In section~\ref{sec:stabl}, the main features of the validation procedure
171: of a computed local couple $\{q, e \}$ are discussed.
172: Criteria for the identification of ill-conditioning features within an
173: integrand profile are summarized in section~\ref{sec:wellco}.
174: Their practical importance is assessed in the section~\ref{sec:applics}
175: based on numerical evidence obtained from the solution of case study
176: integrals by Gauss-Kronrod 10--21 quadrature rules
177: \cite{QUADPACK}
178: with improved error estimate
179: \cite{AA01}.
180: Concluding comments are given in section~\ref{sec:concl}.
181: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
182: \section{Definitions and notations}
183: \label{sec:defs}
184:
185: Let $I$ denote the actual value of the integral to be solved numerically,
186: \begin{equation}
187: I \equiv I[f] = \int\sb{a}\sp{b} g(x) f(x) dx \ ,\
188: - \infty < a < b < \infty .
189: \label{eq:Iref}
190: \end{equation}
191: Here, the {\sl weight function} $g(x)$ is an analytically integrable function
192: which absorbs a {\sl difficult part\/} of the integrand (e.g., an oscillatory
193: or a singular factor). In the absence of such factors, $g(x) = 1$.
194: The integrand function $f(x)$ is assumed to be {\sl continuous almost
195: everywhere\/} on $[a, b]$, such that~(\ref{eq:Iref}) exists and is finite.
196:
197: A {\sl local quadrature rule\/} produces as solution of~(\ref{eq:Iref})
198: a couple \{$q,~e$\}, where the {\sl quadrature sum} $q$ yields an approximate
199: value of the integral $I$, while the {\sl local error estimate} $e > 0$
200: provides information on the accuracy of $q$. If $e > |e\sb{Q}|$, where
201: \begin{equation}
202: e\sb{Q} = I - q
203: \label{eq:exct}
204: \end{equation}
205: is the actual error associated to $q$, then the couple
206: \{$q,~e$\} is {\sl reliable}, otherwise it is {\sl unreliable} and
207: the numerical solution fails.
208:
209: A $(2n + 1)$-knot interpolatory quadrature sum $q\sb{2n}$ is obtained as
210: the analytical solution of the integral~(\ref{eq:Iref}) with the
211: integrand~$f(x)$ replaced by an interpolatory polynomial of the $2n$-th
212: degree,
213: \begin{equation}
214: P\sb{2n}(x) = \sum\sb{k=0}\sp{2n} \alpha\sb{k}~p\sb{k}(x),
215: \label{eq:Pref}
216: \end{equation}
217: where \{$p\sb{k}(x)$\} is the set of polynomials of degree at most
218: $2n$ spanning the approximating space of $P\sb{2n}(x)$. The coefficients~%
219: $\alpha\sb{k}$ are obtained from the set of conditions of interpolation
220: \begin{equation}
221: P\sb{2n}(x\sb{i}) = f(x\sb{i}),
222: \label{eq:icnd}
223: \end{equation}
224: at a set of $2n+1$ abscissas (called {\sl quadrature knots}) inside $[a, b]$,
225: \begin{equation}
226: a\leq x\sb{0} < x\sb{1} < \cdots < x\sb{2n} \leq b\, .
227: \label{eq:qkgen}
228: \end{equation}
229:
230: In the particular case of the {\sl symmetric\/} ($2n+1$)-knot quadrature
231: sums, the interpolation abscissas inside $[a, b]$ are given by
232: \begin{equation}
233: x\sb{i} = c + h y\sb{i};\; c = (b+a)/2;\; h = (b-a)/2;\;
234: i = -n, -n+1, \cdots, n,
235: \label{eq:qknots}
236: \end{equation}
237: where the reduced quadrature knots $y\sb{i}$ are defined on $[-1, 1]$, such
238: that
239: $
240: 0 = y\sb{0} < y\sb{1} < y\sb{2} < \cdots < y\sb{n} \leq 1,
241: $
242: while $y\sb{-i} = - y\sb{i},\; i = 1, \cdots, n$.
243:
244: The local quadrature sum $q\sb{2n}$ is then expressed as a linear
245: combination of the integrand values at the quadrature knots,
246: \begin{equation}
247: q\sb{2n} \equiv Q\sb{2n}[f] = \sum\sb{i = -n}\sp{n} w\sb{i} f(x\sb{i})\, ,
248: \label{eq:rK}
249: \end{equation}
250: with the quadrature weights showing the symmetry property $w\sb{-i} = w\sb{i}$.
251:
252: The information provided by the $2n+1$ integrand values at the quadrature
253: knots, $\{ f(x\sb{i}) | i = -n, \cdots, n \}$, is insufficient for the
254: derivation of an expression for the error estimate $e\sb{2n}$ associated
255: to $q\sb{2n}$.
256:
257: Kronrod~%
258: \cite{Kronrod65}
259: derived an error estimate, called in what follows {\sl genuine
260: Gauss-Kronrod\/} ({\tt ggk}) error estimate, from an upper bound of
261: \begin{equation}
262: e\sb{ggk} = \vert q\sb{2n} - q\sb{n} \vert \, ,
263: \label{eq:eggk}
264: \end{equation}
265: where $q\sb{2n}$ is the quadrature sum~(\ref{eq:rK}), while~$q\sb{n}$ is a
266: lower degree quadrature sum derived over the subset of~(\ref{eq:qknots}),
267: \begin{equation}
268: x\sb{-n+\gamma} < x\sb{-n+\gamma + 2} < \cdots < x\sb{n-\gamma - 2} <
269: x\sb{n-\gamma}\, .
270: \label{eq:qcoarse}
271: \end{equation}
272: Here, $\gamma = 1$ for an open quadrature sum (typically, the Gauss-Kronrod
273: ({\tt GK}) quadrature where the spanning basis~$\{p\sb{k}(x)\}$
274: in~(\ref{eq:icnd}) is given by Legendre polynomials and their orthogonal
275: Kronrod extensions), while $\gamma = 0$ for a closed quadrature sum
276: (typically, the Clenshaw-Curtis ({\tt CC}) quadrature where the spanning
277: basis~$\{p\sb{k}(x)\}$ in~(\ref{eq:icnd}) is given by Chebyshev polynomials).
278:
279: In what follows, the set of quadrature knots~(\ref{eq:qknots}) is referred to
280: as the {\sl fine\/} discretization of the integration domain $[a, b]$, while
281: the sparser set of quadrature knots~(\ref{eq:qcoarse}) as the {\sl coarse\/}
282: discretization of $[a, b]$. The integrand values at these knots define its
283: {\sl fine\/} and {\sl coarse samplings\/} respectively.
284:
285: In the {\tt QUADPACK} package
286: \cite{QUADPACK},
287: which has been incorporated in most major program libraries, while a {\tt ggk}
288: error estimate was implemented for the {\tt CC} quadrature, the {\tt GK} error
289: estimate was reformulated as follows.
290: Let ${\bar {f}}$ denote the computed value of the average of $f(x)$ over
291: $[a, b]$ at the knots~(\ref{eq:qknots}),
292: \begin{equation}
293: \bar {f} = q\sb{2n}/(b - a)\, ,
294: \label{eq:barf}
295: \end{equation}
296: and let $\Delta = Q\sb{2n}\Bigl[ \vert f - \bar {f} \vert \Bigr]$ denote
297: the computed value of
298: $\int\sb{a}\sp{b} \vert f(x) - \bar {f} \vert dx$,
299: which measures the area covered by the deviations of $f(x)$ around~$\bar {f}$.
300:
301: The local {\sl {\tt QUADPACK} error estimate\/} ({\tt qdp}) is then given by
302: \begin{equation}
303: e\sb{qdp} = \Delta \times \min \{(200 e\sb{ggk}/\Delta)\sp{3/2},\; 1\}.
304: \label{eq:eqdp}
305: \end{equation}
306:
307: The values (\ref{eq:eggk}) and (\ref{eq:eqdp}) are taken for error estimates
308: provided they do not fall below the attainable accuracy limit imposed by the
309: relative machine precision. The latter threshold is defined as the product
310: \begin{equation}
311: e\sb{roff} = \tau\sb{0} \epsilon\sb{0} Q\sb{2n}\Bigl[ \vert f \vert \Bigr].
312: \label{eq:erof}
313: \end{equation}
314: Here $\tau\sb{0}$ is an empirical multiplicative factor (following
315: {\tt QUADPACK}, we have chosen $\tau\sb{0} = 50$) and $\epsilon\sb{0}$
316: denotes the relative machine accuracy.
317:
318: For the case study integrals considered below, the value $I$ of~(\ref{eq:Iref})
319: is computed from the existing analytical expressions, such that the
320: {\sl exact\/} error $e\sb{Q}$~(\ref{eq:exct}) of the quadrature sum~$q\sb{2n}$
321: can be defined.
322:
323: In the graphical representation of the quadrature errors, the {\sl moduli
324: of the relative errors\/} (simply called relative errors in the sequel) are
325: useful,
326: \begin{equation}
327: \varepsilon \sb{\alpha} = \vert e\sb{\alpha} / I \vert \,,
328: \quad \alpha \in \{ 2n, Q \}.
329: \label{eq:erel}
330: \end{equation}
331:
332: The derivation of the local error estimates within a subroutine
333: which implements a quadrature rule uses information inferred from
334: the {\sl estimated relative errors},
335: \begin{equation}
336: \rho \sb{\alpha} = \vert e\sb{\alpha} / q\sb{2n} \vert \, ,
337: \quad \alpha \in \{ ggk, qdp, 2n \}.
338: \label{eq:cerel}
339: \end{equation}
340: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
341: \section{Stability of the diagnostics under subrange subdivision}
342: \label{sec:stabl}
343:
344: Using~(\ref{eq:eggk}),~(\ref{eq:eqdp}) and~(\ref{eq:erof}), we get the local
345: error estimate
346: \cite{AA01}
347: \begin{equation}
348: e\sb{2n} = \max\left[
349: e\sb{roff},\,
350: \min (e\sb{ggk}, e\sb{qdp})
351: \right]\, ,
352: \label{eq:practic}
353: \end{equation}
354: the reliability of which is almost always subject to doubt, except for the
355: case when the lower degree quadrature sum $q\sb{n}$ is sufficiently
356: accurate such that the accuracy of $q\sb{2n}$ itself reaches nine to ten
357: significant figures at least.
358: Such a condition can be confidently assumed to hold provided
359: \begin{equation}
360: e\sb{2n} > e\sb{thr},\quad e\sb{thr} = 2\sp{-18} \simeq 0.38\times10\sp{-5}.
361: \label{eq:rlb0}
362: \end{equation}
363: This empirically proposed threshold value is about two decimal figures
364: more conservative than the smallest values of the unreliable computed error
365: estimates over the evidence discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:applics}.
366:
367: If the opposite of~(\ref{eq:rlb0}) occurs, then a {\sl validation
368: procedure\/} is to be used to assess the reliability of the local couple
369: \{$q\sb{2n}, e\sb{2n}$\}. Thus, a self-validating quadrature rule returns,
370: besides the numerical output for $e\sb{2n}$, a flag having the value zero
371: in case of assumed reliable outputs and non-zero value if the output
372: is not validated.
373:
374: The validation procedure proposed in this paper is based on the study of the
375: information contained in the {\sl profile of the integrand $f(x)$}
376: over $[a, b]$, defined as the set of integrand values at the quadrature
377: knots~(\ref{eq:qkgen}), completed with the endpoint values $f(a)$ and $f(b)$
378: in the case of open quadrature sums.
379: Since the operation of subrange subdivision within automatic adaptive
380: quadrature always involves inner abscissas at existing quadrature knots,
381: the only price to be paid for the inclusion of the endpoint values in the
382: integrand profile is the direct access of the general control routine to
383: such data. This goal is achieved provided the generation of the integrand
384: sampling at the quadrature knots~(\ref{eq:qkgen}) is done within a
385: subroutine which is distinct from that implementing the quadrature rule
386: and is directly subordinated to the general control routine.
387:
388: The study of the integrand profile starts with the definition of its
389: {\sl monotonicity subranges},
390: $[x\sb{i\sb{j-1}}, x\sb{i\sb{j}}]$, over $[a, b]$, where
391: \begin{equation}
392: a = x\sb{i\sb{0}} < x\sb{i\sb{1}} < x\sb{i\sb{2}} < \cdots < x\sb{i\sb{m}}
393: < x\sb{i\sb{m+1}} = b\, ,
394: \label{eq:mntsb}
395: \end{equation}
396: denote the abscissas of the extremal points of $f(x)$ within the sampling.
397:
398: In terms of the answer concerning the number of monotonicity subranges,
399: several specific reliability criteria are checked and the number $\lambda$
400: of the infringements of these criteria is counted. There are three
401: critical values of the pointer $\lambda$ in terms of which a decision is
402: taken:
403: \begin{itemize}
404: \item
405: $\lambda = 0$: probably the investigated integrand profile comes
406: from a well-conditioned integrand, hence the output~$q\sb{2n}$,
407: Eq.~(\ref{eq:rK}) is reliable, while the quadrature error
408: estimate~(\ref{eq:practic}) is overestimated.
409: \item
410: $\lambda = 1$ or $\lambda = 2$: there is a high probability that a
411: difficult isolated point is present which implies slow convergence
412: of the quadrature sums.
413: \item
414: $\lambda \geq 3$: the insufficient resolution of the integrand
415: profile at the involved quadrature knots is manifest. The output
416: is useless and further subrange subdivisions are compulsory.
417: \end{itemize}
418:
419: The existence and finiteness of the Riemann integral~(\ref{eq:Iref})
420: guarantees that, after a {\sl finite\/} number of subrange subdivisions,
421: the discretization process will reach a {\sl stable\/} profile configuration
422: the refinement of which will result in unessential modifications only.
423:
424: Under the occurrence of {\sl isolated\/} difficult points of the integrand,
425: the discretization process will resolve the profile over the well-conditioned
426: subranges within a finite number of subrange subdivisions, and then it
427: will mainly create a dense mesh around the difficult points.
428: In this case, the automatic control subroutine will safely decide upon
429: the activation of a specific convergence acceleration algorithm, such
430: that a reliable numerical solution will be available in the end.
431:
432: The achievement of the {\sl stability\/} of the diagnostics concerning the
433: conditioning properties of the integrand profiles over subranges, got after
434: a {\sl finite\/} number of subrange subdivisions, is the fundamental feature
435: which secures the efficiency of the procedure proposed in this investigation.
436:
437: The occurrence of consistent with each other reliability diagnostics over
438: the current integration range and its subranges obtained by subrange
439: subdivision enables the general control routine to take safe decisions
440: concerning the activation of the implemented alternative algorithms.
441: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
442: \section{Well-conditioned integrand profiles}
443: \label{sec:wellco}
444:
445: The consistency requirements satisfied by a well-conditioned integrand profile
446: are formulated mostly locally and they follow from quite general considerations
447: which are discussed in the next subsections.
448:
449: Any infringement of the consistency criteria derived below is to be added
450: to the value of the ill-conditioning pointer $\lambda$.
451: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
452: \subsection{Insensitivity of the integral sums to discretization details}
453: \label{sec:Riemann}
454:
455: The standard definition of the integral sums in a Riemann integral assumes
456: the fulfillment of the following two features:
457: \begin{itemize}
458: \item[(i)]
459: The norm of the discretization step defined over the integration domain
460: tends to zero.
461: \item[(ii)]
462: The integral sum is insensitive to the the addition or removal of a
463: single discretization abscissa within the defined partition.
464: \end{itemize}
465:
466: In the quadrature algorithms, the norm of the discretization~(\ref{eq:qknots})
467: is far from being close to zero. The quadrature knots are not distributed
468: evenly either.
469: For the {\tt GK} and {\tt CC} quadrature rules mentioned above, the
470: fundamental range $[-1, 1]$ consists of a sparser knot region centered
471: around the origin and two denser knot regions located toward the
472: range ends. The number of abscissas entering the integrand profile
473: associated to a ($2 n + 1$)-knot open quadrature rule equals $2 n + 3$,
474: while the corresponding number for a closed quadrature rule is $2 n + 1$.
475: Therefore, for both kinds of quadrature rules, a particular inner reduced
476: knot $y\sb{i}$ lies in the dense knot region provided the lengths of its
477: two adjacent subranges are smaller than the threshold quantity for a
478: uniform distribution, $d\sb{av} = 2/(2 n + 3)$.
479:
480: An immediate consequence of the feature (i) is the property that the denser
481: discretization regions of a {\sl smooth\/} integrand $f(x)$ secure better
482: accuracy of their contributions to the quadrature sums than the sparser ones.
483: We reformulate this observation as follows: the generation of the fine
484: discretization~(\ref{eq:qknots}) from the coarse discretization~%
485: (\ref{eq:qcoarse}) is expected to result in non-essential modifications of
486: the profile of $f(x)$ over the regions of dense knot discretization.
487:
488: To characterize the extent to which a profile is modified by the addition of
489: new knots inside the region of dense knot discretization, let us consider that
490: $x\sb{0}$ is such a knot.
491: If $x\sb{0}$ belongs to the set of extremal points~(\ref{eq:mntsb}) such
492: that the integrand value $f(x\sb{0})$ is {\sl isolated\/} from the integrand
493: values $f(x\sb{-1})$ and $f(x\sb{1})$ at the nearest neighbours $x\sb{-1}$
494: and $x\sb{1}$ by the median line $f = \bar {f}$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:barf}),
495: then the knot $x\sb{0}$ is said to be {\sl sensitive}. If {\sl both\/}
496: quantities $f(x\sb{-1})$ and $f(x\sb{1})$ stay on the same side with
497: $f(x\sb{0})$ with respect to the median line $f = \bar {f}$, then the
498: knot $x\sb{0}$ is said to be {\sl regular}. If the median line
499: $f = \bar {f}$ separates $f(x\sb{0})$ from {\sl only one\/} of the
500: values $f(x\sb{-1})$ or $f(x\sb{1})$, then the knot $x\sb{0}$ is said to be
501: {\sl gray}.
502:
503: We are now ready to formulate the first practical reliability criterion:
504: \begin{itemize}
505: \item[(I)]
506: {\tt Non-sensitivity of the extremal points:}\\
507: {\sl The addition of supplementary quadrature knots to the coarse
508: partition~(\ref{eq:qcoarse}) to reach the fine partition~%
509: (\ref{eq:qknots}) does not result in supplementary gray or sensitive
510: extrema of the profile of a well-conditioned integrand over the
511: regions of dense knot discretization}.
512: \end{itemize}
513: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
514: \subsection{Features which stem from the basis polynomials}
515: \label{sec:basicp}
516:
517: Since the equations~(\ref{eq:qknots}) perform the mapping of the original
518: interval $[a, b]$ onto the reduced interval $[-1, 1]$ over which the
519: orthogonal polynomials are usually defined, in this subsection we refer
520: to this reduced interval and use the notation $p\sb{k}(y)$ for the
521: basis polynomials. All the properties discussed below hold true over
522: arbitrary interval lengths, hence reference to the expression~(\ref{eq:Pref})
523: of the interpolatory polynomial spanned by the basis orthogonal polynomials
524: does not give rise to any confusion.
525:
526: The existence and uniqueness of the interpolatory polynomial~(\ref{eq:Pref})
527: is secured provided the set of basis polynomials spanning~(\ref{eq:Pref})
528: define a Chebyshev system over $[a, b]$. Therefrom the following properties
529: hold true:
530: \begin{itemize}
531: \item[(iii)]
532: $p\sb{0}(y) = const$.
533: \item[(iv)]
534: The set of the successive extremal values of a polynomial~$p\sb{k}(y)$
535: of degree $k > 1$ defines an {\sl alternating sequence\/}
536: over~$[-1, 1]$.
537: \item[(v)]
538: The zeros of the polynomials $p\sb{k}(y)$ and $p\sb{k+1}(y)$
539: {\sl are interlaced\/} inside the open range $(-1, 1)$.
540: \end{itemize}
541:
542: The average value ${\bar {f}}$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:barf}), of the
543: integrand~$f(x)$, which defines its zeroth order moment over the
544: sampling~(\ref{eq:qkgen}) and is related to the coefficient of
545: $p\sb{0}(y)$ within a basis set of orthogonal polynomials, serves
546: as reference value with respect to which the oscillations of the
547: integrand profile are counted.
548: The intersections of the integrand profile with the line
549: $f = {\bar {f}}$ define the {\sl zeros\/} of the integrand profile.
550:
551: The alternation property (iv) results in the important consequence that
552: the deviations of the successive extremal values of a well-conditioned
553: integrand profile from~${\bar {f}}$ define an {\sl alternating\/}
554: sequence with {\sl comparable amplitudes\/} at the adjacent extremal
555: knots~(\ref{eq:mntsb}). This property can be detailed for practical
556: purposes into two well-conditioning alternation criteria:
557: \begin{itemize}
558: \item[(IIa)]
559: {\tt Type-1 alternation criterion:}\\
560: -- {\sl Each inner monotonicity subrange of a well-conditioned integrand
561: profile\\
562: \phantom{ -- }intersects the line $f = \bar{f}$.\\
563: -- The two end point monotonicity subranges do not diverge
564: from $f = \bar{f}$}.
565: \item[(IIb)]
566: {\tt Type-2 alternation criterion:}\\
567: {\sl Each inner gray extremal point which satisfies the type--1
568: alternation criterion is to stay sufficiently far from the line
569: $f = \bar{f}$}.
570: \end{itemize}
571:
572: The test for the occurrence of an infringement of the type--1 alternation
573: criterion is obvious. As it concerns the the latter criterion, two
574: infringements are to be simultaneously tested:
575: \begin{itemize}
576: \item
577: The distance from $f(x\sb{0})$ to $\bar{f}$ is to be smaller than those
578: of its nearest neighbouring extrema.
579: \item
580: Let $a\sb{0}$, $a\sb{l}$ and $a\sb{r}$ denote the areas
581: surrounded by $f = \bar{f}$ and the integrand profile around $x\sb{0}$
582: and its nearest neighbours in the set~(\ref{eq:mntsb}). Then
583: \begin{equation}
584: |a\sb{0}| < t\sb{1}|a\sb{l} + a\sb{r}|,\quad t\sb{1} = 10,
585: \label{eq:critIIb}
586: \end{equation}
587: where the value of $t\sb{1}$ was chosen such as to point to a
588: discrepancy exceeding an order of magnitude.
589: The computation of the three local areas is done by compound trapeze rule
590: which is robust and sufficiently accurate for the involved comparison.
591: \end{itemize}
592:
593: Corroboration of the interlacing property (v) with the non-sensitivity
594: criterion (I) results in a criterion for the distribution of the zeros
595: of the integrand profile:
596: \begin{itemize}
597: \item[(III)]
598: {\tt Non-sensitivity of the zeros:}\\
599: {\sl Over the dense knot regions, the numbers of zeros of the fine
600: and coarse profiles of a well-conditioned integrand are the same.}
601: \end{itemize}
602: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
603: \subsection{Integrand variations around its isolated extremal points}
604: \label{sec:xisola}
605:
606: The lateral first order derivatives of a smooth first order differentiable
607: function vanish at an extremal point, while the curvature of a second order
608: differentiable function (which is given by the second order derivative)
609: keeps constant sign over a nonvanishing neighbourhood of the extremum.
610:
611: Within the discrete mesh defined by the quadrature knots, inquiries about
612: these properties can be made only at integrand profile approximations of
613: {\sl isolated\/} extremal points
614: of the integrand. If $x\sb{0}$ is such a point, then a {\sl sufficiently
615: large\/} neighbourhood $\{ \xi\sb{l}, \xi\sb{r}\}$ around $x\sb{0}$ can be
616: defined within which the evaluation of the quantities of interest is
617: expected to be weakly influenced by the presence of neighbouring extrema.
618:
619: Let us assume that an isolated extremal point of a well-conditioned integrand
620: was identified within a sufficiently well resolved integrand profile.
621: The following consistency criteria establish well-conditioned behaviours
622: of the data:
623: \begin{itemize}
624: \item[(IV)]
625: {\tt First lateral derivative criterion:}\\
626: {\sl The approximation of the lateral first order derivatives at an
627: isolated extremum of the profile using fine sampling data is closer
628: to zero as compared to the value estimated from data defined over a
629: coarse sampling with respect to the extremum location}.
630: \item[(V)]
631: {\tt Curvature sign constancy criterion:}\\
632: {\sl The sign of the second order derivative computed from fine sampling
633: data centered at the extremum is the same as that of the value
634: estimated from data involving the reference extremum as a lateral
635: point to the left/right}.
636: \end{itemize}
637:
638: We shall illustrate the quantitative implementation of these criteria for
639: a reference extremum $x\sb{0}$ which is said to be {\sl isolated to the right}.
640: That is, the neighbourhood $\{ \xi\sb{l}, \xi\sb{r}\}$ contains inside it
641: the set of abscissas $\{ x\sb{-1}, x\sb{0}, x\sb{1}, x\sb{2} \}$
642: at which the integrand function takes respectively the values
643: $\{ f\sb{-1}, f\sb{0}, f\sb{1}, f\sb{2} \}$.
644:
645: To estimate the approximation of the first order right lateral derivative,
646: we define the interpolatory polynomial of the third degree which fits these
647: four data. This yields the following result:
648: \begin{equation}
649: f\sp{\prime}\sb{r, fine}(x\sb{0}) = d\sp{(1)}\sb{1,0} -
650: \frac{h\sb{1,0}}{h\sb{2,-1}}\Big[ h\sb{0,-1} d\sp{(2)}\sb{2,1} +
651: h\sb{2,0} d\sp{(2)}\sb{1,-1} \Big]\, .
652: \label{eq:d1rf}
653: \end{equation}
654: Here, $h\sb{i,j} = x\sb{i} - x\sb{j}$,
655: $d\sp{(1)}\sb{i,j} = (f\sb{i} - f\sb{j})/h\sb{i,j}$ denote the
656: first order divided differences at $x\sb{i}$ and $x\sb{j}$,
657: while $d\sp{(2)}\sb{2,1} = \left( d\sp{(1)}\sb{2,0} - d\sp{(1)}\sb{1,0}
658: \right) / h\sb{2,1}$ and
659: $d\sp{(2)}\sb{1,-1} = \left( d\sp{(1)}\sb{1,0} - d\sp{(1)}\sb{0,-1}
660: \right) / h\sb{1,-1}$ denote specific second order divided differences.
661:
662: On the other hand, the coarse sampling around $x\sb{0}$ yields:
663: \begin{equation}
664: f\sp{\prime}\sb{r, coarse}(x\sb{0}) = d\sp{(1)}\sb{2,0}\, .
665: \label{eq:d1rc}
666: \end{equation}
667: The criterion (IV) then simply states that the approximations~(\ref{eq:d1rf})
668: and~(\ref{eq:d1rc}) should satisfy
669: $\vert f\sp{\prime}\sb{r, fine}(x\sb{0}) \vert <
670: \vert f\sp{\prime}\sb{r, coarse}(x\sb{0}) \vert$.
671:
672: Over the same set of data, the criterion (V) requirement of constancy of the
673: sign of the second order derivative results in the condition
674: \begin{equation}
675: \left( d\sp{(1)}\sb{2,0} - d\sp{(1)}\sb{1,0} \right)
676: \left( d\sp{(1)}\sb{1,0} - d\sp{(1)}\sb{0,-1} \right) > 0\, .
677: \label{eq:d2r}
678: \end{equation}
679:
680: For the extremal point $x\sb{0}$ isolated to the left, similar conditions are
681: derived from the data set $\{ f\sb{-2}, f\sb{-1}, f\sb{0}, f\sb{1} \}$
682: obtained at the abscissas $\{ x\sb{-2}, x\sb{-1}, x\sb{0}, x\sb{1} \}$.
683: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
684: \subsection{Well-conditioning inside monotonicity subranges}
685: \label{sec:monowc}
686:
687: Inside any monotonicity subrange of a smooth first order differentiable
688: function~$f(x)$, the first order derivative varies {\sl smoothly\/} from point
689: to point.
690:
691: Within numerical quadrature, the fulfillment of this property for an
692: integrand sampling can be checked by making use of first order
693: divided differences.
694: If the integrand profile is monotonic over $[a, b]$, or monotonicity
695: subranges can be defined which extend over three successive knots at
696: least, then a smoothly varying profile will by characterized by the
697: {\sl absence of jumps:}
698: \begin{itemize}
699: \item[(VI)]
700: {\tt Absence of jumps inside monotonicity subranges:}\\
701: {\sl Inside a monotonicity range, the ratio of two successive first
702: order divided differences cannot exceed a relative smoothness threshold}.
703: \end{itemize}
704: If one of the knots involved in the divided differences is an extremal point,
705: then this smoothness condition is to be checked only one-directionally,
706: skipping the case of vanishingly small divided difference at the extremal
707: point.
708:
709: For knots far from inflection points, a threshold value $t\sb{jmp} = 10$,
710: corresponding to the agreement of the successive divided differences within
711: an order of magnitude, is appropriate. In the neighbourhood of inflection
712: points characterized by a maximum of the first order derivative, this value
713: is to be halved to detect ill-conditioned behaviour, while in the
714: neighbourhood of inflection points characterized by a minimum of the first
715: order derivative, five times larger threshold value is appropriate.
716: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
717: \section{Numerical results}
718: \label{sec:applics}
719:
720: The significance of the conditioning criteria discussed in the previous
721: section is intuitive and straightforward. In addition to the case specified
722: by the condition~(\ref{eq:rlb0}), a second case when the reliability analysis
723: can be skipped is that of a {\sl monotonic profile\/} characterized by an
724: error estimate
725: \begin{equation}
726: e\sb{2n} > 0.5 |q\sb{2n}|\, .
727: \label{eq:0.5}
728: \end{equation}
729: Then the computed quadrature sum is highly inaccurate, such that an error flag
730: can be directly assigned.
731:
732: The diagnostics of the reliability criteria (IIb), (IV), (V), and (VI) depend
733: on specific adjustable parameters. If the quantitative thresholds entering
734: these criteria are decreased, the diagnostics becomes less permissive, with the
735: consequence that the reliability range shrinks and the number of wrong
736: diagnostics is decreased. The opposite occurs under the increase of the
737: quantitative thresholds. The numerical data reported in this section
738: show that, when corroborated with the requirement of the stability of the
739: diagnostics formulated in Sec.~\ref{sec:stabl}, the formulation of the
740: reliability criteria in Sec.~\ref{sec:wellco} is able to eliminate practically
741: all the spurious outputs occurring in an automatic adaptive quadrature
742: algorithm.
743:
744: To illustrate the present analysis, a comparison is done of three codes using
745: Gauss-Kronrod 10--21 ({\tt GK 10-21}) quadrature rules:
746: ($\alpha$) the {\tt QUADPACK} code~%
747: \cite{QUADPACK},
748: ($\beta$) the self-validating code of~%
749: \cite{AA01},
750: and ($\gamma$) the code using the present reliability analysis.
751:
752: Each code solved the parametric families of elementary integrals considered
753: in ref.~%
754: \cite{AA01}.
755:
756: The first is the family of integrals over $[0, 1]$ of the terms of the
757: fundamental power series, $x\sp{n}$,
758: \begin{equation}
759: \int\sb{0}\sp{1} x\sp{n}\,dx~= \frac{1}{n+1}\,, \quad n = 0, 1,\cdots , 1023.
760: \label{eq:pow}
761: \end{equation}
762: %\vspace*{-2mm}
763: \begin{figure}[ht]
764: \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}
765: %\resizebox{\textwidth}{10cm}
766: {\includegraphics{fig1pol.eps}}
767: \caption{Relative errors $\rho\sb{qdp}$ and $\rho\sb{2n}$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:cerel}),
768: $\varepsilon\sb{Q}$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:erel}), of the {\tt GK 10-21}
769: outputs for the family of integrals~(\ref{eq:pow}) at exponents
770: $n \leq 200$.
771: The upper leftmost solid line arrow points to the accuracy basin
772: extension established by the {\tt QUADPACK} code using the error
773: estimate~(\ref{eq:eqdp}). The solid line arrow on the same vertical
774: points to the upper accuracy of the quadrature sum $q\sb{2n}$
775: retained as reliable by the {\tt QUADPACK} code.
776: The next pair of solid arrows show the result of the analysis done
777: in ref.~%
778: \cite{AA01}.
779: The left interrupted line arrow represents the extension of the
780: reliability basin established by the present analysis, while the
781: right one shows the exponent threshold above which the criterion~%
782: (\ref{eq:0.5}) supersedes the need of reliability analysis.
783: }
784: \label{fig:fr21pow}
785: \end{figure}
786: The integrands are monotonic, inflection points are absent over the integration
787: range. Fig.~\ref{fig:fr21pow} illustrates the behaviour of the error estimates
788: with the power $n$ running over the range \{$0, 200$\}.
789: The results obtained for this family of integrals can be summarized as follows:
790: \begin{itemize}
791: \item
792: The {\tt QUADPACK} code infers an accuracy basin of the {\tt GK 10-21}
793: code extending from $n = 0$ to $n\sb{max} = 40$, with the consequence that
794: all the $q\sb{2n}$ outputs showing an actual accuracy lower than 14 decimal
795: digits are thrown away. As shown in~%
796: \cite{AA01},
797: this early cut of the accuracy basin {\sl does not rule out the
798: possibility of wrong error diagnostics\/} at asymptotically large $n$.
799: \item
800: The self-validating analysis of ref~%
801: \cite{AA01}
802: extends the accuracy basin of {\tt GK 10-21} up to $n\sb{max} = 59$,
803: which corresponds to a correct identification
804: of the outputs $q\sb{2n}$ as reliable up to accuracies of roughly nine
805: significant digits. Above $n \ge 60$, {\sl all\/} the reliability
806: diagnostics have been correct.
807: \item
808: The present analysis establishes an accuracy basin up to $n\sb{max} = 160$,
809: which corresponds to outputs $q\sb{2n}$
810: showing at least three significant decimal digits.
811: At exponents $n \ge 195$, the criterion~(\ref{eq:0.5}) directly
812: establishes the occurrence of unreliable $q\sb{2n}$ outputs without
813: making recourse to the reliability analysis.
814: \end{itemize}
815:
816: The second family solves integrals for a same integrand (which simulates a
817: centrifugal potential at large $x$) over ranges of variable length,
818: \begin{equation}
819: \int\sb{0}\sp{b} \frac{1}{x\sp{2} + 1}\,dx~= \arctan (b)\,,
820: \quad b = n,\quad n = 0, 1,\cdots , 10000.
821: \label{eq:atg}
822: \end{equation}
823: %\vspace*{-2mm}
824: \begin{figure}[h]
825: \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}
826: %\resizebox{\textwidth}{10cm}
827: {\includegraphics{fig2atan.eps}}
828: \caption{Same as fig.~\ref{fig:fr21pow} for the family of
829: integrals~(\ref{eq:atg}), at upper integration ranges $b \leq 260$.
830: The arrows bear the same significance.
831: }
832: \label{fig:fr21atg}
833: \end{figure}
834: The integrands are monotonic, an inflection point is present.
835: Fig.~\ref{fig:fr21atg} illustrates the behaviour of the error estimates
836: with the upper integration range $b = n$ for $n$ running over the range
837: \{$0, 260$\}.
838: In this figure the occurrence of cusps in the $\varepsilon \sb{Q}$ curve
839: points to the existence of fractional integration domain lengths at which the
840: quadrature sum $q\sb{2n}$ solves {\sl exactly\/} the integral~(\ref{eq:atg}),
841: such that the exact error changes sign.
842: The results obtained for this family of integrals can be summarized as follows:
843: \begin{itemize}
844: \item
845: The {\tt QUADPACK} code infers an accuracy basin of the {\tt GK 10-21}
846: code extending up to $n\sb{max} = 10$, with the consequence that
847: all the $q\sb{2n}$ outputs showing an actual accuracy lower than
848: seven decimal digits are thrown away. {\sl All the {\tt QUADPACK}
849: reliability diagnostics above $b = n = 2460$ have been false}.
850: \item
851: The self-validating analysis of ref~%
852: \cite{AA01}
853: extends the accuracy basin of {\tt GK 10-21} up to $n\sb{max} = 25$,
854: which corresponds to a correct identification
855: of the outputs $q\sb{2n}$ as reliable up to accuracies of about six
856: significant digits. At $n \ge 26$, {\sl all\/} the reliability
857: diagnostics have been correct.
858: \item
859: The present analysis establishes an accuracy basin up to $n\sb{max} = 37$,
860: which corresponds to outputs $q\sb{2n}$
861: showing at least three significant decimal digits.
862: At exponents $n \ge 247$, the criterion~(\ref{eq:0.5}) directly
863: establishes the occurrence of unreliable $q\sb{2n}$ outputs without
864: making recourse to the reliability analysis.
865: \end{itemize}
866: \begin{figure}[h]
867: \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}
868: %\resizebox{\textwidth}{10cm}
869: {\includegraphics{fig3oc10.eps}}
870: \caption{Outputs of the {\tt GK~10-21} quadrature rule for the family of
871: integrals~(\ref{eq:oc10}) at $p = 1$.
872: The significances of the solid line arrows are the same as in
873: fig.~\ref{fig:fr21pow}.
874: The left interrupted line arrow represents the extension of the
875: reliability basin up to which the present analysis validates
876: {\sl all\/} the outputs~$q\sb{2n}$.
877: Inbetween the two interrupted line arrows, the diagnostics of the
878: present analysis is too conservative in about one third of the
879: solved cases.
880: }
881: \label{fig:oc10p1}
882: \end{figure}
883: \begin{figure}[ht]
884: \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}
885: %\resizebox{\textwidth}{10cm}
886: {\includegraphics{fig4os10.eps}}
887: \caption{Same as fig.~\ref{fig:oc10p1} for the family of
888: integrals~(\ref{eq:os10}) at $p = 1$.
889: }
890: \label{fig:os10p1}
891: \end{figure}
892:
893: Next, we considered two pairs of families of integrals showing nonmonotonic
894: (oscillatory) behaviour, written in algebraically equivalent forms:
895: \begin{eqnarray}
896: ({\bf C1})&&\int\sb{-1}\sp{1}e\sp{p(x-x\sb{0})}\cos(\omega x)\,dx~=
897: \label{eq:oc10}\\
898: ({\bf C2})&&\int\sb{0}\sp{1} 2e\sp{-px\sb{0}}\cosh(px)\cos(\omega x)\,dx~=
899: \label{eq:oc11}\\
900: && = 2 e\sp{-px\sb{0}}[p \sinh(p) \cos(\omega) +
901: \omega \cosh(p)\sin(\omega)] /(\omega\sp{2} + p\sp{2})\,;
902: \label{eq:roc}
903: \end{eqnarray}
904: \begin{eqnarray}
905: ({\bf S1})&&\int\sb{-1}\sp{1}e\sp{p(x-x\sb{0})}\sin(\omega x)\,dx~=
906: \label{eq:os10}\\
907: ({\bf S2})&&\int\sb{0}\sp{1} 2e\sp{-px\sb{0}}\sinh(px)\sin(\omega x)\,dx~=
908: \label{eq:os11}\\
909: && = 2 e\sp{-px\sb{0}}[p \cosh(p) \sin(\omega) -
910: \omega \sinh(p)\cos(\omega)] /(\omega\sp{2} + p\sp{2})\,.
911: \label{eq:ros}
912: \end{eqnarray}
913:
914: The parameter $\omega$ was chosen to run over the set of values
915: \begin{equation}
916: \omega\sb{n} = n \pi /60,\quad n \in \{ 0, 6000\},
917: \label{eq:omegan}
918: \end{equation}
919: while constant values $p = 1$ and $x\sb{0} = - 1$ have been chosen on the
920: ground that they are typical for the description of the behaviour of the
921: numerical results.
922: \begin{figure}[ht]
923: \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}
924: %\resizebox{\textwidth}{10cm}
925: {\includegraphics{fig5oc11.eps}}
926: \caption{Same as fig.~\ref{fig:oc10p1} for the family of
927: integrals~(\ref{eq:oc11}) at $p = 1$.
928: }
929: \label{fig:oc11p1}
930: \end{figure}
931: \begin{figure}[h]
932: \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}
933: %\resizebox{\textwidth}{10cm}
934: {\includegraphics{fig6os11.eps}}
935: \caption{Same as fig.~\ref{fig:oc10p1} for the family of
936: integrals~(\ref{eq:os11}) at $p = 1$.
937: }
938: \label{fig:os11p1}
939: \end{figure}
940:
941: The analysis of the families of integrals~(\ref{eq:oc10}--\ref{eq:os11})
942: shows that the identification of a well-conditioned nonmonotonic integrand
943: profile needs testing the {\sl complete set\/} of consistency criteria
944: established in Sec.~\ref{sec:wellco}.
945: Therefore, the analysis is long. However, it is straightforward and
946: can be easily implemented in a computer program.
947:
948: Figures~\ref{fig:oc10p1} to~\ref{fig:os11p1} show outputs
949: for the parameter $n$ running over
950: the range $n \in \{ 0, 1080\}$.
951: In these figures, two peculiarities of the $\varepsilon \sb{Q}$ curves are
952: apparent.
953: Similar to Fig.~\ref{fig:fr21atg}, the occurrence of cusps at
954: {\sl minima\/} in the $\varepsilon \sb{Q}$ curves point to the existence
955: of values of the parameter $\omega$ at which the given integrals are solved
956: {\sl exactly\/} by the quadrature sum $q\sb{2n}$, such that the exact error
957: changes sign.
958: The sharp maxima noticed in the $\varepsilon \sb{Q}$ curves occur at $\omega$
959: values which correspond to {\sl entire periods\/} of the oscillatory
960: factors over the integration range, such that important {\sl cancellation
961: by subtraction\/} effects occur which result in sensible worsening of the
962: numerical output.
963:
964: A summary of the results obtained for the families of integrals~(\ref{eq:oc10}),
965: (\ref{eq:oc11}), (\ref{eq:os10}), and~(\ref{eq:os11}) is given in Table~1.
966:
967: The {\tt QUADPACK} code predicts the narrowest accuracy basins in all the
968: cases. Practically, any computed output $q\sb{2n}$ with actual accuracy
969: above the computer roundoff is ruled out as unreliable.
970: At large values of the argument $\omega$ of the trigonometric functions,
971: this code results in an average rate of spurious outputs of about two percent.
972: In figs.~\ref{fig:oc10p1} and~\ref{fig:os10p1}, unreliable estimates
973: of this code are noticed at arguments $\omega > 12\pi$ and $\omega > 14\pi$
974: respectively.
975: The user {\sl is not\/} notified of the wrong diagnostics associated to
976: these outputs at the moment of solving the integrals of interest.
977: As mentioned in the Introduction, the only way of identifying them is
978: the far end prediction of nonphysical results for the involved observables.
979:
980: \input{table.tex}
981:
982: The self-validating procedure developed in ref.~%
983: \cite{AA01}
984: slightly enlarged the extension of the accuracy basin predictions,
985: with no wrong outputs at all.
986:
987: The present reliability analysis identified substantially larger accuracy
988: basins of the output. All the $q\sb{2n}$ outputs showing more than six
989: accurate figures have been correctly identified as reliable.
990: For outputs $q\sb{2n}$ showing inbetween six and three accurate figures,
991: the present diagnostic was too conservative for 19 $\bf (C1)$ integrals,
992: 51 $\bf (S1)$, 57 $\bf (C2)$, and 176 $\bf (S2)$ integrals.
993: At values of the argument $\omega$ in large excess to those falling in the
994: accuracy basins, a number of spurious diagnostics was produced by the primary
995: reliability analysis. {\sl All\/} the wrong diagnostics occurring at a first
996: run {\sl were identified as wrong and corrected\/} under subrange subdivision.
997:
998: \begin{figure}[ht]
999: \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}
1000: %\resizebox{\textwidth}{10cm}
1001: {\includegraphics{fig71612.eps}}
1002: \caption{Ill-conditioned integrand features in the family of
1003: integrals~(\ref{eq:oc10}--\ref{eq:os11}) at $\omega = 1612 \pi / 60$.
1004: }
1005: \label{fig:1612}
1006: \end{figure}
1007: \begin{figure}[h]
1008: \resizebox{\textwidth}{!}
1009: %\resizebox{\textwidth}{10cm}
1010: {\includegraphics{fig83646.eps}}
1011: \caption{Ill-conditioned integrand features in the family of
1012: integrals~(\ref{eq:oc10}--\ref{eq:os11}) at $\omega = 3646 \pi / 60$.
1013: }
1014: \label{fig:3646}
1015: \end{figure}
1016: Fig.~\ref{fig:1612} and fig.~\ref{fig:3646}, show integrand profiles
1017: for the integrals~(\ref{eq:oc10}--\ref{eq:oc11})
1018: and~(\ref{eq:os10}--\ref{eq:os11}) at the large parameter values
1019: $\omega = (1612 \pi / 60)$ and $\omega = (3646 \pi / 60)$ respectively,
1020: together with hints (showed by arrows) on infringements of the reliability
1021: criteria established in Sec.~\ref{sec:wellco}.
1022:
1023: A scrutiny of the integrand profiles shows that, in general, it is hardly
1024: probable that a highly oscillatory integrand structure can be resolved at
1025: the existing quadrature knots. However, if intermediate unresolved
1026: structures are present, these induce, as a rule, infringements of one or more
1027: reliability criteria.
1028: The complete list of criteria infringements is given below:
1029: \begin{itemize}
1030: \item
1031: {\sl Criterion (I):}\\
1032: In fig~\ref{fig:1612}:
1033: the integral $\bf (C1)$ at $y\sb{-8}$ and $y\sb{8}$;
1034: the integral $\bf (S2)$ at $y\sb{8}$.\\
1035: In fig~\ref{fig:3646}:
1036: the integral $\bf (S1)$ at $y\sb{-10}$ and $y\sb{10}$
1037: (not shown in the plot);
1038: the integral $\bf (C2)$ at $y\sb{7}$,
1039: and the integral $\bf (S2)$ at $y\sb{10}$
1040: (not shown in the plot).
1041: \item
1042: {\sl Criterion (IIa) -- over end subranges:}\\
1043: In fig~\ref{fig:3646}:
1044: the integral $\bf (S1)$ over the subrange $[y\sb{-11}, y\sb{-10}]$
1045: (not shown in the plot).
1046: \item
1047: {\sl Criterion (IIa) -- over inner subranges:}\\
1048: In fig~\ref{fig:1612}:
1049: the integral $\bf (C1)$ over the subranges $[y\sb{-8}, y\sb{-7}]$,
1050: $[y\sb{-7}, y\sb{-6}]$, $[y\sb{6}, y\sb{7}]$, and
1051: $[y\sb{7}, y\sb{8}]$ ;
1052: the integral $\bf (S2)$ over the subranges $[y\sb{-7}, y\sb{-6}]$
1053: and $[y\sb{-6}, y\sb{-5}]$;\\
1054: In fig~\ref{fig:3646}:
1055: the integral $\bf (C1)$ over 15 (!) subranges: $[y\sb{-10}, y\sb{-9}]$,
1056: $[y\sb{-9}, y\sb{-8}]$, $[y\sb{-8}, y\sb{-7}]$,
1057: $[y\sb{-7}, y\sb{-6}]$, $[y\sb{-6}, y\sb{-5}]$,
1058: $[y\sb{-4}, y\sb{-3}]$, $[y\sb{-3}, y\sb{-2}]$,
1059: $[y\sb{-1}, y\sb{0}]$, $[y\sb{2}, y\sb{3}]$; $[y\sb{3}, y\sb{4}]$,
1060: $[y\sb{5}, y\sb{6}]$, $[y\sb{6}, y\sb{7}]$, $[y\sb{7}, y\sb{8}]$,
1061: $[y\sb{8}, y\sb{9}]$, and $[y\sb{9}, y\sb{10}]$
1062: (not shown in the plot since they are obvious).
1063: \item
1064: {\sl Criterion (IIb):}\\
1065: In fig~\ref{fig:1612}:
1066: the integral $\bf (S2)$ at $y\sb{7}$;\\
1067: In fig~\ref{fig:3646}:
1068: the integral $\bf (S1)$ at $y\sb{-9}$ and $y\sb{9}$;
1069: the integral $\bf (C2)$ at $y\sb{-6}$ and $y\sb{3}$;
1070: the integral $\bf (S2)$ at $y\sb{9}$.
1071: \item
1072: {\sl Criterion (III):}\\
1073: In fig~\ref{fig:1612}:
1074: the integral $\bf (C2)$ inside the subranges: $[y\sb{-9}, y\sb{-8}]$,
1075: and $[y\sb{-8}, y\sb{-7}]$;
1076: the integral $\bf (S2)$ inside the subranges: $[y\sb{7}, y\sb{8}]$,
1077: and $[y\sb{8}, y\sb{9}]$;
1078: \item
1079: {\sl Criterion (IV):}\\
1080: In fig~\ref{fig:3646}:
1081: the integral $\bf (S1)$ at $y\sb{9}$ (left derivative).
1082: \item
1083: {\sl Criterion (V):}\\
1084: In fig~\ref{fig:3646}:
1085: the integral $\bf (S2)$ at $y\sb{-6}$ (left neighbourhood).
1086: \item
1087: {\sl Criterion (VI):}\\
1088: In fig~\ref{fig:1612}:
1089: the integral $\bf (S1)$ to the right of the knot $y\sb{-2}$ and
1090: to the left of the knot $y\sb{2}$;
1091: the integral $\bf (C2)$ to the right of the knot $y\sb{-2}$ and
1092: to the left of the knot $y\sb{2}$.
1093: \end{itemize}
1094: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1095: \section{Comments and conclusions}
1096: \label{sec:concl}
1097:
1098: The present investigation started from the need to get reliable numerical
1099: solutions of difficult parametric integrals occurring in theoretical models
1100: devoted to the study of the mechanism of the high-$T\sb{c}$ superconductivity
1101: in cuprates
1102: \cite{Plak95}-\cite{YuLu00}
1103: and in a theoretical model of nuclear fission
1104: \cite{Aurel98}.
1105: An important prerequisite to be satisfied by the automatic quadrature
1106: algorithms needed for the evaluation of the observables was the substantial
1107: increase of the reliability of the local error estimates.
1108:
1109: We have found that the study of the conditioning of the integrand profile
1110: enables the formulation of validation criteria (consistency conditions for
1111: a well-conditioned profile) able to identify insufficient profile resolution
1112: or the occurrence of isolated difficult points of the integrand.
1113: The analysis is simple, it is intuitive, it is easily implemented in a
1114: computer program and it is easily done.
1115:
1116: An important supplementary bonus offered by this analysis was the
1117: identification of $q\sb{2n}$ output reliability ranges which are
1118: substantially larger in comparison with those obtained within the
1119: usual implementations of quadrature routines.
1120: The unsatisfactory features noticed in the validation criteria developed in
1121: ref.~%
1122: \cite{AA01}
1123: have been fully removed.
1124:
1125: The subroutines doing the profile analysis described in this paper are
1126: documented and described in a separate document
1127: \cite{AA02}.
1128:
1129: We conclude this study with the observation that
1130: the validation analysis described in the present paper is {\sl not\/}
1131: intended to replace the existing quadrature algorithms. When the estimated
1132: accuracy exceeds a critical threshold (tentatively set to five decimal
1133: figures), then the present procedure is skipped altogether.
1134: However, if this threshold is not attained, it is automatically activated
1135: by the general control routine. Its results prove to be invaluable in the
1136: analysis of complex integrands, where it is able to discover the
1137: overwhelming fraction of peculiar integrand profiles at early stages of
1138: the analysis.
1139: % -----------------------------------------------------------------------
1140: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1141: The investigation was partially financed by
1142: the JINR grant no.~571/15.10.2001 afforded by the Romanian
1143: Plenipotentiary Representative.
1144:
1145: One author (Gh.A.) is grateful to Yu Lu, A. S\v andulescu, and
1146: \c S. Mi\c sicu for discussions of specific physical models.
1147:
1148: %\vspace*{-1.0mm}
1149: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1150: %\vspace*{-0.8mm}
1151: \bibitem{Plak95}
1152: N.M. Plakida, R. Hayn, and J.-L. Richard,
1153: % Two-band singlet-hole model for the copper-oxide plane
1154: Phys. Rev. B 51 (1995) 16599.%16599--16607.
1155: %\vspace*{-0.8mm}
1156: \bibitem{Plak02}
1157: N.M. Plakida, L. Anton, S. Adam, and Gh. Adam,
1158: % Exchange and spin-fluctuation pairing in the two-band Hubbard model.
1159: % Application to cuprates,
1160: {\it In} New Trends in Superconductivity. J.F. Annett and S. Kruchinin,
1161: Eds. (Kluwer Academic Publ., New York, 2002) p. 29.%29--38.
1162: %\vspace*{-0.8mm}
1163: \bibitem{Plak01}
1164: N.M. Plakida, L. Anton, S. Adam, and Gh. Adam,
1165: % Exchange and spin-fluctuation superconducting pairing in cuprates,
1166: Preprint JINR, E-17-2001-59, Dubna, 2001; arXiv:cond-mat/0104234.
1167: %\vspace*{-0.8mm}
1168: \bibitem{YuLu98}
1169: P.A. Marchetti, Zhao-Bin Su, and Lu Yu,
1170: % ${\mbox{U(1)} \times \mbox{SU(2)}}$ Chern-Simons gauge theory of
1171: % underdoped cuprate superconductors,
1172: Phys. Rev. B 58 (1998) 5808.% 5808--5824.
1173: %\vspace*{-0.8mm}
1174: \bibitem{YuLu00}
1175: P.A. Marchetti, Jian-Hui Dai, Zhao-Bin Su, and Lu Yu,
1176: % Gauge field theory of transport and magnetic relaxation in
1177: % underdoped cuprates,
1178: J. Phys.: Cond. Matter 12 (2000) L329.% L329--L336.
1179: \vspace*{-0.8mm}
1180: \bibitem{Aurel98}
1181: A. S\v andulescu, F. C\^ arstoiu, \c S. Mi\c sicu, A. Florescu, A.V. Ramayya,
1182: J.H. Hamilton, J.K. Hwang, W. Greiner,
1183: Phys. Rev. C 57 (1998) 2321.
1184: %\vspace*{-0.8mm}
1185: \bibitem{K&U98}
1186: A.R. Krommer and C.W. Ueberhuber.
1187: Computational Integration
1188: (SIAM, Philadelphia, 1998).
1189: %\vspace*{-0.8mm}
1190: \bibitem{AA01}
1191: Gh. Adam, S. Adam,
1192: % Increasing reliability of Gauss-Kronrod quadrature
1193: % by Eratosthenes' sieve method
1194: Computer Phys. Commun. 135 (2001) 261.% 261--277.
1195: %\vspace*{-0.8mm}
1196: \bibitem{QUADPACK}
1197: R. Piessens, E. deDoncker-Kapenga, C.W. \"Uberhuber, and
1198: D.K. Kahaner,
1199: {\tt QUADPACK}, a subroutine package for automatic integration
1200: (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1983).
1201: %\vspace*{-0.8mm}
1202: \bibitem{Kronrod65}
1203: A.S. Kronrod,
1204: Nodes and weights of quadrature formulas
1205: (Consultants Bureau, New York, 1965).
1206: %\vspace*{-0.8mm}
1207: \bibitem{AA02}
1208: Gh. Adam, S. Adam,
1209: {\tt QGKPAN} -- Quadrature at Gauss-Kronrod Knots with Profile
1210: Analysis, to be submitted to Computer Phys. Commun.
1211: \end{thebibliography}
1212:
1213:
1214: \vfil\eject
1215: \def\endpage{\hfill\eject}
1216:
1217: \end{document}
1218: